NOTICE OF MOTION FOR AN UNAPPOSED RETURN

Beverley Hughes: The helpline is one of a number of important vehicles by which children and young people who run away can get some immediate advice, although I think it worth bearing in mind that the vast majority of children who run away return home within 24 hours, which should be our primary objective. The helpline also gets considerable funding from the Home Office—about £900,000 this year, including £600,000 core funding. I am certainly willing to arrange a meeting to discuss the work of the helpline if that is thought to be useful.

Tom Levitt: I am very grateful for that response. It is worth reminding the House that it was this Government who legislated to ban topup fees and the anarchy and cutthroat competition that they would have produced. It is important to have a system, but every time it changes there is a dip in the number of applications, so will my hon. Friend redouble his efforts to ensure that young people in particular are aware of the advantages that the new funding scheme brings both to them and to universities, and encourage young people to take up those opportunities?

Jim Knight: We are confident about the level of capital support that we are giving Northamptonshire and, indeed, the country as a whole. Northamptonshire and its schools are receiving capital support of more than £90 million over the current spending period. That includes more than £8 million that is based on the new pupil places criteria. It is up to the Tory council in Northamptonshire to spend that money wisely. We must not try to learn any lessons from the Conservative party on capital funding. When it left office, it was spending £600,000, but we are now spending ten times that on capital.

John Bercow: Can we have a statement next week from the Home Secretary about his intended treatment of Rwandan genocide suspects? A number of such individuals currently reside in the UK, and at least one has been granted indefinite leave to remain. A statement by the Home Secretary would enable him to make clear to the House whether he intends to deal with such people by extradition or by domestic prosecution. In particular, he would be able to underline the important point that asylum should be granted to people fleeing persecution, and not to those seeking to evade responsibility for their suspected persecution of others.

Adrian Bailey: The Secretary of State may be aware that, in my capacity as secretary to the allparty steel and metals group, I have led deputations to the Minister responsible for steel on issues arising from phase 2, not least the dramatic reduction in carbon allowances that will be made. The industry maintains that both for blast furnaces and electric arc furnaces the spreadsheets on which the calculations have been based are incorrect and have not been drawn up in consultation with the industry. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that in the consultation with the industry we arrive at targets that will deliver on our overall national target but not compromise the longterm viability of the steelmaking industry in this country?

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman raises a very interesting point, not just in respect of China and India but perhaps also the 248 US cities that have now committed themselves to the Kyoto targets under something called the Seattle declaration led by the mayor of Seattle, some of which have expressed an interest in joining the scheme. The latest legal advice is that it is not open to nonmembers of the EU. However, I am pleased to report that I hear that there are moves afoot to try to replicate the successes of the EU scheme in other regions of the world.

David Miliband: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy is still pressing on the gas liberalisation issue—the hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. However, I can say to him that I felt in my discussions with the European Environment Council on Tuesday in Luxembourg that there was widespread recognition that we absolutely had to make the ETS work, because it is the lowestcost way of driving down carbon emissions, and that view was shared not just by member states but in the Commission. We shall be working very hard to ensure that they live up to that commitment.

Barry Gardiner: Government amendment No. 1 is a consequential change that is necessary because of amendments that we are making to schedule 2, which we shall come to shortly. The amendment ensures that part 1 of the Bill will apply to land exempted from registration by order under section 11 of the Commons Registration Act 1965. The amendment will have no immediate effect on the excepted commons, which cover about 1,000 hectares and which are listed in the annex to the explanatory notes. However, it will ensure that excepted commons may be brought on to the registers under amendment No. 95. and so help to ensure that the registers are properly comprehensive on what is and what is not common land.
	Government amendments Nos. 2 to 4 and No. 11 make some minor amendments to clarify references to land in part 1. They ensure that in each place where an amendment is made—clauses 7, 15 and 16—a reference to land is taken to the land in England and Wales other than in the New forest, Epping forest and the forest of Dean. This approach is consistent with similar references elsewhere in the Bill.
	Without the amendments, there was a small risk that an application to register a green under clause 15, to vary a right of common under clause 6, or for exchange under clause 16, could cause land to be put forward for registration which was actually already unregistered common land in the areas exempted from registration under clause 5. These amendments resolve that risk.
	Government amendment No. 12 is a minor and technical provision that secures greater consistency. It removes a redundant reference to part 1 of the Commons Act 1899, which is a form of words not used elsewhere in the Bill.
	Government amendment No. 13 clarifies that the powers to correct mistakes in the register under clause 19 extend to mistakes made under the Commons Registration Act 1965. Given the many mistakes which occurred under that Act, it seems sensible to put the matter beyond doubt.
	Government amendment No. 15 clarifies that an application duly made under various provisions in part 1, which otherwise complies with any requirements imposed in the Bill or under regulations, must be granted. It makes it clear that registration authorities do not have a discretion to refuse an application other than on the criteria set out in the Bill or in regulations. The amendment does not apply to schedule 2 because the provisions in the schedule already put the requirement beyond doubt.

James Paice: These amendments deal with commons that have been partially developed, and I tabled them for two reasons. First, we were concerned that there was a drafting error, but people who know far more about legal jargon than I do agree that there is no such error. Secondly, there is a point of principle. In Committee, in a debate on the apportionment of rights, we discussed carefully what happens when a dominant tenement is sold or split and is partially developed. Indeed, we discussed an example in which one piece of land is developed and lots of individual houses are built on it. The legislation, as drafted, would give all those houses an apportionment of the rights.
	On reflection, I question whether that is right, so the principal purpose of the amendments is to challenge the Government to explain why the right of common should endure if part of the dominant tenement is no longer used for an agricultural purpose. Commons rights were originally attached to agricultural land, as we discussed in Committee—I shall not repeat all those debates today. Former agricultural land could be completely developed and the rights apportioned so that, for example, there is one sheep per house in a new housing estate. Is that logical?
	The Minister may well respond that those people will clearly not exercise their right to own a single sheep, and I accept that that may be so, given all the bureaucracy that the Government have imposed on sheep owners. Rights can be transferred under schedule 1—we will come on to that later—but if the owner develops the dominant tenement and decides not to transfer the rights but to apportion them among the properties, difficulties could arise. As the Minister said, we will come on to discuss the establishment of statutory associations—I agree that they should become councils—which brings the issue of rights into play. The logic of the Bill is that all those individual owners, with perhaps one or two rights each, will all have a voice even though, in reality, they do not have any agricultural interest.
	We have discussed many times in the House—indeed, the Minister referred to it himself a few minutes ago—the issue of people who move into a rural area without understanding anything about it. In the example that I gave, however, they could have a significant voice, as they would have to be consulted on the establishment of an association and, indeed, they would become part of it. A welcome later amendment would give preferential treatment to people who utilise their rights but, nevertheless, the occupants of all those house in the example that I gave would have a say in the establishment of the association, its running and, of course, the management of the commons. I question whether that is right, which is why, despite clarification of the drafting, I tabled the amendments. It is a little late to ask the Minister to go away and think about the issue again, but I urge him at least to reflect on it, and tell the House how he will address the problem that I have identified. When rights are fragmented and many rights owners involved, how can that be dealt with by the management systems and the associations established by the latter part of the Bill? It would have been far better to use a de minimis arrangement to extinguish rights of common in those circumstances.

Amendment made: No. 4, in page 7, line 30, after 'land' insert
	'to which this Part applies'.— [Mr. Watts.]

Barry Gardiner: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 7, line 33, leave out 'local inhabitants' and insert
	'the inhabitants of any locality, or of any neighbourhood within a locality,'.

James Paice: I am not surprised that the Government have tabled the Trap Grounds amendments, which I naturally support. I welcome the other amendments, which are the Government's response to representations that I made in Committee. I regret that the Minister has not been given the concrete examples that he and the hon. Member for South Dorset asked for. I have spoken to the individuals and businesses who originally made representations to me, who said that notwithstanding the assurances given by the Minister and his hon. Friend, they were concerned about commercial confidentiality and therefore felt unable to provide examples. I do not necessarily endorse that stance, but that is why it did not happen.
	I am particularly pleased that the Minister tabled the amendments, despite not having those examples—I know what they are, but it would be improper to describe them—because they represent a significant step forward. They deal with situations such as those that I described in Committee, whereby a development may have been started but not completed. There could be serious financial consequences for the developer if it was unable to complete a project that was a complete package, particularly if it had laid infrastructure or designed an estate, for example. I do not know whether the Minister has taken advice on this, but I suspect that the amendments will relieve him of the risk of claims for substantial damages from such developers if that had happened. That may have been another factor in persuading him to table them, but whatever his reasons, they are welcome.
	I tabled amendment (a) because I should like the Minister to clarify for me, and for my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), the precise meaning of the word "construction". In Committee, we had a discussion about the meaning of the word "building". Although amendment No. 10 initially refers to "construction works", paragraph (c) refers to "works". Most of us can understand what "works" means, but some people might argue that "construction works" can mean physical walls, steel uprights, and so on. Would it include ground works such as digging foundations, the laying of drains, or the construction of security fencing around a site, which is, sadly, an essential precursor to developing a site nowadays? It might cover a whole raft of things. The Minister is conscious of the Pepper  v. Hart dictum, which at this stage in the proceedings of a Bill is about all that we can rely on. I hope that he will explain exactly what he means by "construction works" and how restrictive that might be in the interpretation of the wider group of amendments, which in principle I wholly support.

Paddy Tipping: Several of us said in Committee that we were keen on the creation of more village greens, and clause 15 allows that to happen. As the Minister said, the Trap Grounds case has held up some applications, but that judgment is now through.
	I want to talk about a case that I mentioned in Committee—that of Keenwell in Calverton in Nottinghamshire. Local people in Calverton made an application for registration of that new green at the back end of last year. The commons registration authority, Nottinghamshire county council, decided not to pursue the registration at that stage as it was awaiting the outcome of the Trap Grounds judgment. That judgment is helpful, as is clause 15(4), which suggests that if local inhabitants have a claim if they have used the land lawfully for sports and pastimes for more than 20 years. That condition is met. I know Keenwell extremely well; it is a site of some value bordered by an ancient village track.
	Within the last month, the registration application has been made, and it is a case of "so far, so good". However, the owner of the land, Langridge Homes, recently said that it had an outstanding planning permission that has lain dormant since 1972—so dormant that the planning authority, Gedling borough council, was unable to find it. A struggle has been going on in Calverton between the local people who made the application to the registration authority and Langridge Homes. That may be the kind of example that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire was looking for. Langridge Homes now wants to start developing that land to block the application.

Owen Paterson: I was wondering when I might test your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I thought that it would be helpful for the Minister to have the maximum amount of information.
	The point is that the whole project, which would be of enormous significance to the town of Oswestry and the surrounding area, depends on the status of the Five Acre site. It was the subject of a village green application in August 2004, which went to a public inquiry last October. The inspector rejected the application based on current law. That whole exercise involved more than £100,000 in legal costs. Clearly, until we clarify exactly how clause 15 will emerge from our deliberations, and what effect amendment No. 10 will have on it, there is some uncertainty. I cannot help adding that the people who put in the application are splendid—they are some of the greatest campaigners for health services, who have been out in wet, filthy weather collecting petitions. On this issue, sadly, they have been terribly misguided. However, we have a wonderful iron age fort called Old Oswestry to go and walk on.
	If the project is stalled, the worry is that the primary care trust will be under tremendous pressure from other parts of Shropshire, including parts of my constituency, and that the money will go elsewhere, a chain reaction will set in, and all the projects will fall. Advantage West Midlands is seriously concerned that a precedent could be set for other brownfield sites across the country. It makes a good point that such sites are often in areas of heavy contamination and deprivation, which are often the last to be developed. Therefore, they are also the ones with the longest record of use by local residents for casual recreation, dog walking and so on. The problem is that those sites cost tens of thousands of pounds to investigate, and remedial work such as removing contaminants and preparing sites for construction can cost hundreds of thousands of pounds.
	In that regard, I would really like to hear the Minister's definition of what is meant by "construction works" in amendment No. 10, paragraph (b). I would also like an explanation of why we cannot revert to the wording of sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii), under paragraph (c), which would be the effect of my hon. Friend's amendment (a) in removing the word "construction". Do remedial works and clearing trees, rubbish and detritus of 50 years count as the beginning of construction? Does building a security fence, which is the prerequisite of any construction site, count as the beginning of construction works? Does carrying out an archaeological survey count? In some parts o the country, it would be unconscionable to start developing a site without carrying out serious archaeological investigations. Surely, those are an integral part of the whole construction process. If clause 15 does not allow those processes, bluntly, it will make development of those sites across the country considerably more risky and unlikely to happen.
	Let me give the House an idea of the strength of feeling locally. The current leader of Oswestry borough council, Councillor David G. Lloyd, told me this morning:
	"The weed-strewn, abandoned railway land in the town of Oswestry has been an economic and visual blight on the town's landscape for decades.
	The town and borough is crying out for improved health care provision and the disused railway land is the perfect location to accommodate a modern GP practice and a 50 bed nursing/care facility for which outline planning consent has been given and which would also be the hub for other essential medical and community care services.
	It has the backing of the public who are frustrated by the delay caused by a handful of people who are opposed to the project.
	New residential development for which planning has already been given plus a modern health village together with the former Station Building refurbished at a cost of more than £2 million would provide an attractive gateway to the town rather than the eyesore that exists at present and which has meant that some businesses bring clients into the town via an alternative route."
	Councillor Lloyd was referring to himself at that point. I know that when he takes potential investors into Oswestry he does not take them past that site because it is so off-putting—or was, until a large wooden fence was built around it.
	Similarly, Oswestry borough council's regeneration officer has said:
	"when one looks at the benefit to the whole borough it would be unthinkable that this area was left to go back to the wilderness it once was. In fact since it has been cleared the vandalism in that area has decreased enormously and personally I feel if the area was regenerated, it would boost civic pride, improve the main artery into the town from the North which currently such a would be investor would come along, just promotes an area of misery and poverty not one of vibrancy and vitality."
	I should like the Minister to explain why the word "construction" is necessary. It makes the definition unnecessarily narrow, unless preliminary work of the kind that I have described—clearing a site, building a security fence and carrying out environmental tests and preparatory work—counts as part of the construction process. Most people would interpret construction in the same way as my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire: starting with bricks and mortar, and laying foundations. In this instance, that is the easy bit. By far the most difficult part of the project has been getting all the interested parties together. I have attended more than 15 meetings—every two months—as well as meetings here.

David Maclean: I rise to support the amendments, but I want to press the Minister about the need in due course to produce regulations dealing with submitting notification of transfers and keeping the registers up to date.
	At present, the registers record the existence of common rights, but not who owns them. If the rights were not registered in 1965, they have ceased to exist. The problem is that there is no register of who owns common rights. The registers reflected the position in 1965 but they have not been updated since, and numerous transfers and sales of rights have taken place.
	The Bill does not really improve the situation. After reflecting and consulting widely on the matter, I entirely accept that we cannot reopen the registers. Like his predecessor in Committee, the Minister is right about that. Although there are many injustices because the registers were not reopened, I am now convinced that as many new injustices would arise if we reopened them and tried to correct the mistakes. Too much time has passed, and it is no longer possible to do anything about it.
	However, in respect of notification, the Government assert that, if information on ownership is required, it is a simple matter to search the dominant tenement, as detailed in the registers of common rights. That search can be carried out at the Land Registry, but I stress to the Minister—I think that his officials know this already—that that is a very cumbersome process for several reasons. First, the field numbers detailed in the commons registers are no longer used, so it is difficult to identify the dominant tenement without considerable research. Secondly, numerous searches of the Land Registry would have to be made, one for each entry on the commons registers with rights attached to land. Thirdly, searches of the Land Registry would have to be repeated every time that a list of owners was required, as there is no process for keeping the "live" register updated. Finally, the costs of collating information would be burdensome on the party that needed it. Sometimes, that would be the Minister's Department, but on other occasions it would be English Nature when it was undertaking conservation work, or commoners wishing to enter agri-environment schemes or form commons associations.
	The Government argue that there can be only one definitive record of ownership. If there were more than one record of that, they ask, which would take priority if there were inconsistencies between the Land Registry and the commons register entries? Their reasoning is undoubtedly correct, but that should not prevent them from making it a requirement that transfers of rights must be notified to the relevant local authority, perhaps accompanied by a certificate from the Land Registry. The commons registers would not be proof of ownership—only the Land Registry documents could provide that—but they would least be worthwhile, because they would contain useful documents about where ownership truly lay.
	The problem is that, without up-to-date records of the ownership of rights, the proper management of commons is very difficult. Owners cannot be consulted on entry to agri-environment schemes, breaches of rules cannot be identified easily, and consultation on works such as construction or fencing cannot be undertaken properly. Moreover, the lack of up-to-date records makes consultation on the formation of statutory commons councils or associations very difficult.
	In conclusion, I want to make the following suggestion—that the regulations that I hope that the Minister will make will encourage the notification of transfers. The Land Registry will continue to be the bible of who owns what, but I hope that the Minister will assure the House that he will bring in regulations providing for some sort of notification system when rights are transferred. That notification could then be placed in the commons registers, so that we would have a more up-to-date record of who owns the land. That would make consultation, and all the other things that I have mentioned, much easier.
	I hope that the Minister will be minded to do what I suggest. I am not looking for firm guarantees today, but I also hope that he does not give me a firm put-down. I accept that this matter is not the top priority, and that he may have other regulations to make first, but I hope that he will say that he at least sees the merit of my proposal and considers that it could be worthwhile. I should like a guarantee that he will consult about it in the next year to see whether it has legs. If he finds that it does have legs, I shall give him my full backing—even though he can run a lot faster than I can these days.

Barry Gardiner: First, I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) when he thanked my officials for the way in which they have dealt with all matters relating to the Bill. His words were greatly appreciated by me and, I am sure, by them.
	At risk of placing my own position in peril, may I say that I often see merit in the words the former Opposition Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean) and that I am not averse to seeing merit in what he said on this occasion? I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has seen the briefing on the Commons Bill, which identifies the ownership of rights of common. I hope that it explains, to some extent at least, why we cannot adopt wholesale and simply the approach that he has commended this afternoon.
	The issue of the register failing to show who can exercise rights of common is an important one. Traditionally, rights of common are attached to land, typically a farm, and those rights may be exercised by the landowner. That means that most commoners have strong connections with the common, because they occupy farms that neighbour it. The Bill preserves and reinforces that connection by banning severance and by providing that the registers are conclusive evidence of the attachment of the rights to land.
	The Bill does not enable owners of such land to register their personal entitlement to exercise rights, because that entitlement is the inevitable consequence of their owning the land. Ownership of land can be demonstrated by registration of ownership in the Land Registry, as the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged. However, we acknowledge that it would be helpful if the register showed who is entitled to exercise rights.
	We will enable commoners to enter a supplementary note on the register, declaring their entitlement to exercise rights. The declaration would not be conclusive but may be informative. We are also exploring the possibility of providing in regulations that a commoner need not be consulted on any matter affecting the common unless he has declared his entitlement to those rights, thus giving him an incentive to do so.

David Maclean: Amendment No. 23 is an important amendment and I congratulate the Minister on listening to the representations made in Committee. It is important that those who earn a living from the land should have more say on how the commons are managed than those who are just living in the area. There is an increasing tendency these days, as farming declines and particularly some of the small farms at the foot of the hills decline, for them to be bought out by offcomers like myself, as they would say in Cumbria—a large number of people who do not earn a living from the land but are buying up farmhouses or farms; and suddenly, one discovers that one has some extraordinary rights of common.
	I think—I can only say "think" because I am not certain; it is my negligence—that for the past 10 years I owned some rights to cut peat on Mungrisdale common. I did not exercise them and I have sold that house now, so I shall not be exercising them, but it is not too farfetched to imagine a situation where so many of us who are not practising farmers buy houses or land—we buy our quaint little bit of old England—and then we want to freeze things in aspic. We do not want to let modern farming practices continue and we do not want to see sheep around, breaking into the garden. We do not want grazing. We do not want this or that. It is important that the minority, in some cases, who may be actually carrying on the practice of farming the commons, and managing them and keeping them in their current condition, have a much greater say in how they are run than those people who just buy a bit of land and suddenly find that they have a grazing right, a peat-cutting right or a heather-burning right and do not intend to do anything with it.
	Again, I know that the Minister cannot be specific about what weight he will attach to five representations from one side and 10 from the other. He cannot be formulaic about it, but we need assurances on the mechanics of how he will listen more to the views of practising commoners, rather than those who have merely acquired a piece of land. That is probably going to be an increasing problem that we face in rural England in the management of commons over the next few years.

Barry Gardiner: Amendment No. 122 would permit statutory powers given to commons councils to be delegated to voluntary associations of commoners. It would strengthen the role of voluntary associations of commoners where they might continue to exist on commons that come under the jurisdiction of a large commons council.
	Where a commons council is established over one or more commons, voluntary commoners' associations may continue to exist and play an important role in the day-to-day management of individual commons, as I tried to outline to the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) a few moments ago. For example, they may co-ordinate the activities of graziers in managing their livestock to comply with rules made by the commons council. Voluntary associations cannot, and should not, be given free-standing statutory functions. A commons council will be given statutory functions only after following an establishment procedure and consulting interests in the common to ensure that there is substantial support for its proposals. In our view, it would be quite inappropriate for a council to be able to divest itself of statutory functions to voluntary associations that have no legal foundation and may not be representative of all the interests in a common.
	A large commons council covering multiple commons may, however, set up committees or sub-committees to address specific issues, or even to manage activities on a particular common on behalf of the council, but responsibility for the statutory functions of the council must remain with that body. I should clarify the fact that voluntary associations will not have a formal role within a commons council. Membership of the council will typically be established by democratic election, and it would not be right automatically to appoint a voluntary association to serve on the council, because it will not necessarily represent all commoners. Of course, there is no reason why members of the voluntary association could not put themselves forward for election to the council. While we expect that there will be situations in which commons councils work alongside voluntary associations, they will not automatically consist of voluntary associations, as the amendment proposes. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) to withdraw his amendment.
	Amendment No. 117 would enable a local authority actively to manage an unclaimed common. Under section 9 of the Commons Registration Act 1965, which is re-enacted in clause 45, local authorities already have powers to protect unclaimed common land. In that context, protection means taking action against unlawful interference—for example, seeking a court order against caravans drawn onto the common, or dealing with an encroachment. The amendment, however would enable an authority to go further, so that it could manage the land as if it were itself the owner. On the face of it, that seems a sensible step.
	We support the aim of enabling local authorities to manage unclaimed common land, which is why clause 50 amends part I of the Commons Act 1899 to update existing powers to make a scheme of management for common land and allow management to be vested in the local authority. That is the best approach to managing unclaimed common land. A scheme of management ensures that the authority has clear powers to administer the common in the interests of the local community, but it ensures, too, that the authority has clear responsibilities.
	Making a scheme is straightforward and relatively cheap—a scheme recently made by Forest of Dean district council cost less than £700. Alternatively, it would be open to the local community to seek to establish a commons council for the land, and the local authority could help to facilitate that. The management of the common would be in the hands of the commons council, rather than the authority. A commons council will have all the powers needed to manage common land, even when the owner cannot be identified, and thus ensure that the objective of better management, which I share with the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, can be achieved.
	Unfortunately, the effect of the hon. Gentleman's amendment is much less clear. It would certainly allow an authority to plant trees or cut the grass, but by doing so, would it acquire any of the duties of an owner or occupier, so that, for example, it would be obliged to make safe any dangerous trees, or dispose of fly-tipped waste? What would happen if the commoners objected to what the authority had done, or if the owner turned up and wanted the authority to remove the trees that it had planted the previous year? Those difficulties are resolved by schemes of management, but not by the hon. Gentleman's proposals. I can appreciate his indifference to such schemes, as he may fear that local authorities will not take the initiative to make new schemes. However, we are already committed to advising local authorities on their new powers under the Bill in a circular, which we intend to publish as part of the implementation programme following Royal Assent.
	We want to reinvigorate the powers in the 1899 Act by changing the Bill and by commending those changes to local authorities. However, we cannot advise local authorities, and we do not think that it would be right to dip in and out of the process of commons management, as the amendment suggests, because it must be a case of all or nothing. It is right that authorities can step in, when required, to protect common land, but that does not imply that they have wider responsibilities for that land. If a local authority wants to go further than that, it should make a scheme of management so that everyone is clear about its role and responsibilities.
	Those are important aspects of the scheme, and it is right that those matters are covered comprehensively in the scheme rather than being left uncertain, as this amendment would have it. Once again, I am unable to support the amendment, which I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw.

Amendments made: No. 64, in page 20, line 12 [Clause 35], leave out 'association' and insert 'council'.
	No. 65, in page 20, line 13 [Clause 35], leave out 'association' and insert 'council'.
	No. 66, in page 20, line 19 [Clause 35], leave out 'association' and insert 'council'.
	No. 67, in page 20, line 24 [Clause 35], leave out 'association' and insert 'council'.— [Mr. Watts.]

Amendment made: No. 68, in page 20, line 30 [Clause 36], leave out 'association' and insert 'council'.— [Mr. Watts.]

Amendments made: No. 69, in page 21, line 10 [Clause 37], leave out 'association' and insert 'council'.
	No. 70, in page 21, line 12 [Clause 37], leave out 'association' and insert 'council'.
	No. 71, in page 21, line 13 [Clause 37], leave out 'association' and insert 'council'.
	No. 72, in page 21, line 15 [Clause 37], leave out 'association' and insert 'council'.
	No. 73, in page 21, line 20 [Clause 37], leave out 'association' and insert 'council'.
	No. 74, in page 21, line 22 [Clause 37], leave out 'association' and insert 'council'.
	No. 75, in page 21, line 25 [Clause 37], leave out 'association' and insert 'council'.— [Mr. Watts.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
	Government amendments Nos. 76 to 80
	No. 121, in page 43, line 35 [Schedule 4], leave out
	'on or after 28 June 2005 but'.

James Paice: I welcome the Government amendments that deal with the issue of the National Trust. Again, we referred to that matter in Committee, where I tabled those amendments. In Committee, the Minister said that the amendments were not necessary, so I am glad that this Minister has acceded to them. Ministers often say, "It is necessary to include such and such provision, because it is implicit somewhere else", which usually leads Opposition Members to argue, "If it is not going to do any harm, why don't you put it in the Bill for clarity?" Ministers usually resist such moves, but this Minister has not done so on this occasion, which is welcome.
	Amendment No. 114 concerns works on commons, which we debated at some length in Committee and about which the Minister and I have had further discussions. I suspect that the Minister will argue that clause 38 is similar to existing legislation, so there is not a problem. However, I suggest that we should take this opportunity to make sure that there is not a problem in the future. There are obviously far more users of commons than there used to be, including not only graziers, but pedestrians and dog walkers.
	The amendment is straightforward. It is designed to eliminate the problem of people, organisations and commons councils having to apply to the national authority for permission to do temporary or urgent works. The three purposes for which it would be possible to carry out such works are human safety, animal welfare and conservation. However, those purposes would not be sufficient in themselves, because the second part of the amendment adds two further provisos—first, that the works must be urgent, and, secondly, that they must be temporary.
	We debated temporary works in Committee. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) will recall that we discussed electric fencing to keep livestock off roads during the grazing season, and there was some debate about how long is "temporary". I have not tried to specify the period of time and suggest that the matter could be dealt with by regulation, which would allow the Minister to consult before drawing a conclusion. The circumstances in which I envisage the issue of urgency arising involve, for example, floodwater rendering part of a common dangerous for children. There are town commons in my constituency where people roam, and much of my constituency is fenland, which, because it is close to sea level, is prone to flooding. It might be sensible to erect emergency fencing, even if it is that dreadful orange plastic stuff that is used around roadworks, to keep children out of deep water.
	Other commons may have old pit shafts where ground could suddenly collapse as a result of torrential rain, again creating a need for emergency safety provisions for children and livestock. It is by no means unknown for sheep to fall down into such places. In terms of conservation, there may be a wild plant that is flowering and should be protected until it has set its seed, or a wild bird such as a hen harrier or other bird of prey that is nesting on the ground and needs to be protected for a short period.
	I find it incredible that in all the examples that I have cited it should be necessary to apply to the national authority—in England, the Secretary of State—for permission to act. I would be very surprised if someone was able to get that permission in a matter of hours, yet a situation involving floodwater or the collapse of old mine workings is certainly an emergency, and there should be an ability to erect something very quickly.
	I cannot pretend that I am standing here in huge anticipation that the Minister will welcome and accept my amendment with open arms, but it concerns a genuine issue. I have bent over backwards in devising it to make it as minimal as possible in addressing the concerns that his predecessor expressed in Committee. It is limited to specific examples but would reduce the need for councils or landowners to seek consent from the national authority without good cause. It defies belief that a council should have to go through this procedure in an emergency, thereby creating a period of risk for perhaps several weeks while the relevant authorities carry out all the necessary deliberations and consultations before a decision is reached. I am not trying to circumvent the need to apply for consent, but merely to allow for a temporary arrangement in an emergency while it is being sought.
	This requires a sense of proportion and common sense. The Government rightly and understandably want to protect the rights of commons users other than graziers, such as walkers and people using the open access provisions, but I am trying to protect them as well. They could be at risk from some of the situations that I described, and it should be possible to protect them as soon as that is necessary. The same applies to the conservation of flora or fauna.
	There is no need for me to speak at any greater length. I think that the case is clear, and I hope that I have made it so. I tried to devise an amendment that the Minister would find acceptable and that is relatively minimal while addressing the fundamental problem. It has received support from outside organisations such as the National Farmers Union. I hope that the Minister will understand its importance and be prepared to accept it.

Barry Gardiner: In our view, unless national authority consent is obtained, any person will be able to seek enforcement action against the maintenance or extension of unlawful old works. If the practical effect of the new work would be further to impede access, compared with the position before the new work was undertaken, the situation is as set out in the letter I wrote on 11 May to members of the Standing Committee. The letter is in the Library, but I might helpfully quote from it on maintenance of works:
	"There appears to have been some confusion about this issue during debate so I thought it might be helpful to set our intentions as to whether consent under clause 38(1) will be required for maintenance to existing works. Works of any description will require consent only if they take place on the common, not if they stand on land adjoining the common, for example on neighbouring farmland. The physical boundaries separating the common for adjoining land, for example the wall between the common and the in-by or enclosed land, is customarily the responsibility of the occupier of that land and not part of the common."
	So, works of maintenance could not require consent.
	New works on the common will not require consent if they are merely maintaining original structures that are lawfully there, provided that maintenance does not create any greater practical impediment to access than the original structure. Examples might be structures that receive consent under section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925 or those where such consent was never needed initially, perhaps because the original works were undertaken before 1926 or under statutory powers.
	If the original works were unlawful when originally constructed, the situation is a little more complicated. If they remain unlawful, nothing in the Bill will change that, and maintaining them will require consent as for any other works that restrict or impede access. Indeed, the original works themselves will continue to require consent. We have clarified the fact that the appropriate national authority will be able to entertain a retrospective application, and that is set out in clause 39(7).
	If the original works are no longer lawful because the time in which enforcement action could have been taken under the Limitation Act 1980 has expired, consent will be needed for maintaining them in the same way as it would be needed for other lawful works, if doing so creates any greater practical impediment to access than the original structure. Any new works that would increase the size or footprint of previous works and, thereby, the degree of impediment to access will always require consent, whether or not the original works had consent. This is because they are not works of maintenance, but works that themselves prevent or impede access.
	I hope that that is helpful and provides light at the end of the tunnel for my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood. Notwithstanding the cut-off date referred to in amendment No. 121, access authorities have powers under chapter 3 of part 1 of the CROW Act to provide means of access on access land. That would provide a way in which access could be promoted, whatever the status and age of the fencing.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood asked what is, on the face of it, a very simple question—why did we change? I have not yet answered it. It has been evident today that the Government have changed a great deal since the Bill was introduced. On the whole, I believe that the changes have improved it. We have had to reflect on the balance of arguments presented to us both in Committee and in the other place. The consensus and compromise that we have sought to bring will enable us to achieve the intention that we all share—to improve the management of our common lands. That is what prompted us to change our views, so I ask my hon. Friend not to press his amendment.

Amendments made: No. 78, in page 25, line 31, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
	'(2) A national authority may for any purpose specified in subsection (2A) by order amend—
	any local or personal Act passed before this Act which contains provision for that authority to consent to works on land which is common land; and
	(b) any Act made under the Commons Act 1876 (c.56) confirming a provisional order of the Inclosure Commissioners which contains provision for that authority to consent to works on land to which the Act applies.
	(2A) The purposes referred to in subsection (2) are—
	(a) that of securing that sections 39 and 40 apply to an application for the consent referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (2) as they apply to an application for consent under section 38(1);
	(b) that of securing that section 41 applies in relation to the carrying out of works in contravention of the provision referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (2) as it applies to works carried out in contravention of section 38(1).'.
	No. 79, in page 25, in clause 44, line 34, after 'subsection (2)' insert—
	'"national authority" means—
	(a) the Secretary of State; and
	(b) the National Assembly for Wales;'.
	No. 80, in page 25, line 39, leave out subsections (4) and (5).— [ Mr. Michael Foster.]

Barry Gardiner: Technology has obviously moved on since my day if that is a technical point. I am happy to accede to the right hon. Gentleman's request that the correspondence be placed in the Library. I think that the original letter was from my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset, now the Minister for Schools, but I am happy to make the correspondence available.
	I probably have no need of correspondence with Sir Martin Doughty because he will no doubt read today's  Hansard and will read the right hon. Gentleman's remarks for himself. I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman may be the one who enters into further correspondence with Sir Martin.
	 Amendment agreed to.

James Paice: Unusually, I am going to cross swords slightly with my right hon. Friend. He well knows that the current phrasing of the Bill is the result of a lot of discussion in the other place, where the Bill started its proceedings, and stemmed from concern that—picking up on the point that he made—those who have sporting interests on the moors, and particularly on the Yorkshire moors, would find them seriously damaged if the rights were sold or transferred in a way that was not helpful overall. There was a lot of discussion in the other place and that is how the current words came to be included. I fully recognise—as I am sure that he will acknowledge that I did in Committee—that to give the landowner the absolute right of veto is wrong. That is why, in Committee, I proposed moving forward on the basis that, if the landowner unreasonably withheld consent, the Minister should be able to override that. I remain of that view, so I welcome Government amendments Nos. 92 to 94. The question is whether we need to go a step further, as my right hon. Friend proposes.
	As I read the Government amendments, they say that if a Minister feels that a landowner has unreasonably withheld consent, that can be overridden. I should point out to my right hon. Friend that we will be considering few such cases in the future because the Bill is designed to end the principle of severance, rather than to allow severance. The Minister would be required to issue an order before severance could take place. Under the Government amendments, he would then have to consider whether consent had been unreasonably withheld.
	The Bill already requires the Minister to consult everyone, including the owners of the land or their representatives. My right hon. Friend's amendment relates to the measure that says that the Minister "must" make provision for whether the landowner has given consent. I am not sure whether the extra step of changing the word "must" to "may" is really necessary. I take the view—this is in some ways where my right hon. Friend and I slightly disagree—that a landowner is a property owner with certain rights. Yes, he would get consulted, but he should have a bit more say than that. I was happy with the compromise that was agreed among the different views in another place, which is represented by the Government amendments, but I am not entirely convinced that the Government would be right to accept the word "may" instead of "must".
	If the Minister were to accept my right hon. Friend's amendment, he would obviously take account of the geographical location of the individual common in question when making an order, and of where the rights to the common pertained. He would also take account of whether the location was an area such as Cumbria, where the landowner's consent would not be especially relevant, an area on the other side of the Pennines, or a place such as the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson). However, my right hon. Friend's amendment would give the Minister more discretion than the Government amendments.
	My right hon. Friend has expressed concern in conversations with us about giving the Minister discretion to decide what unreasonably withheld consent is. However, his amendment would give the Minister even more discretion, not less. It is for that reason that I have yet to be convinced of it. I am sure that the Minister will make his views clear. I do not for a moment suggest that we will divide the House if he wishes to accept the amendment, but I am certainly not convinced that everyone in the other place will be happy with it. If the amendment goes forward to the other place, we will have to see what it decides. It would be a pity if the huge degree of consensus on the Bill overall, to which we will refer on Third Reading, was lost on this matter, but I fear that that could be the case. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say and finding out how he will respond to a tricky situation.

Barry Gardiner: Government amendments Nos. 92 to 94 revisit the provision in paragraph (3) to schedule 1 about the permanent severance of rights of common. My starting point is that most grazing rights would never have been severable were it not for the unintended effect of registration under the Commons Registration Act 1965. Clause 9 reinstates the general prohibition on severance. Schedule 1 gives effect to some exceptions.
	On Third Reading in another place, we responded to calls from Lord Inglewood and others to introduce a power for the national authority to enable permanent severance on a designated common by order. In moving an amendment, my noble friend Lord Bach said that the powers were "a reserve power only". He added that that did not mean that we intended to use them, and said that there were no plans to do so. However, in Committee, the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean), when they were agreeing with each other, sought to temper the requirement that the owner of a common must consent to any individual act of severance.
	We accept the argument advanced in Committee that an owner might exercise a veto for the wrong reasons—for example, to secure a financial inducement—and the amendment enables us to provide in the order that consents must not be unreasonably withheld.
	I move on to amendment No. 115. This has been an extremely good-natured debate. I trust that I will be forgiven if I savour this moment and this amendment and what is going on over on the Opposition Benches. As of this morning, I have had two separate speeches ready for the amendment: one to accept it and one to reject it. I left Opposition Members to struggle out the issue between themselves, to see who could vie most for my attention.
	The amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border would go rather further than the Government amendment. It would give the national authority discretion about whether to include a requirement for the owner's consent in any particular order. I have listened with care to the arguments advanced by the right hon. Gentleman. He represents the interests of his constituents with great tenacity. He has written to me twice on these matters. The way in which he has presented his case, both in correspondence and orally today, does him great credit.
	The right hon. Gentleman has made the trenchant point that severance of common rights in the hills of Cumbria is not a recent innovation. As is often the case in those parts, the rights have always been qualified. The law has always recognised that those rights may be severed. Were we to contemplate an order to permit continued severance in such areas, we would certainly want to have a discretion not to require the consent of the owner. That discretion is not available to us as the Bill stands.
	We remain of the view that there should be a general prohibition on severance. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman has accepted that we are talking of exceptional circumstances. Should we be minded to make an order under paragraph (3) permitting severance in any locality, we should have a power to impose a condition requiring the consent of the owner to any particular act of severance. That will ensure that severance does not interfere with the proper management of common where the owner continues to take an active interest.
	We believe that the Government's amendments to paragraph (3) remain sensible and confer greater flexibility, but I am inclined to agree to the amendment of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border.

Barry Gardiner: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, both for those remarks and for his note.
	I commend the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean) on his legal skills. His amendment is of such a high standard that I am happy to accept it in its present form. If he decides not withdraw it, we would be pleased to add it to the Bill at the final hour. It is fitting, given that we have been considering arrangements for common lands that, in many cases, have been in existence for almost 1,000 years, that it should be a Labour Government who should ensure that the fight against feudalism and the striving for a classless society continue. I am delighted to accept the right hon. Gentleman's amendment, and I trust that he will not withdraw it.

Roger Williams: I, too, have been privileged to take part in the consideration of this legislation, the roots of which go back to feudal times. The wasteland of the manor has survived intact over a very long period, and given the diverse expectations of different people and different parts of the community about the common land, I am always amazed by the fact that people generally seem to get on well and ensure that it is managed to the best purpose. Obviously, some aspects needed improving, and the Bill will do that and ensure that such land exists for a long time into the future.
	I too thank the hon. Members who participated on Second Reading and in Committee. The Bill is improved, and I thank the Bill team for their work and generosity in giving of their time and expertise to me and to other hon. Members.
	Commons will face threats and challenges in the future. As we see more and more of our agricultural land used for energy production, and less available for food production, common land might have to meet challenges that have not been met in the recent past. That will be a test of the legislation. The changes in the common agricultural policy and the different ways in which rightholders use their rights will be very interesting. Now that all the support has gone from production and there is no direct pressure on farmers to graze as much stock as they did in the past, it is possible that biodiversity will vastly improve.
	It would be wrong to refer only to commons and not to village greens, which are very important to our communities. They are green lands in the middle of our towns and cities. They are important not only environmentally, but as a community resource. It has been a privilege to work with everyone involved. I am sure that the Bill will stand the test of time, and I look forward to its implementation.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Vernon Coaker: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It shows that, when the police, local authorities, voluntary organisations, residents' groups, faith groups and others come together, they can make a difference because we have given them the tools, the powers and the laws to make a difference in their community. We often hear the plea in all our constituencies: "Why aren't the laws used more often?" The challenge for us is to demand that the laws be used. My hon. Friend's example of what happens in Sunderland shows that, when people work and act together, it makes a difference and we can reclaim the streets for the decent, law-abiding majority. That is what we want.
	I know that Hartlepool borough council plans to introduce a selective licensing scheme from October. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool referred to that. Selective licensing is a tool introduced by part 3 of the Housing Act 2004 to assist local authorities, together with other appropriate measures, to tackle problems in the private rented sector. A designation comes into force three months after it has been made or approved and all PRS properties, with certain exemptions, in the designated area are required to be licensed by the local authority. A landlord who fails to apply for a licence commits a criminal offence and can be fined up to £20,000. Before granting a licence, a local authority must satisfy itself that the landlord is a fit and proper person to manage the property and that there are, or can be put in place, adequate arrangements for its effective and proper management. In addition, the authority can impose such other conditions as it considers appropriate to secure the proper management of the property, including conditions for preventing or reducing antisocial behaviour by the tenant or his visitors.
	For local people to have confidence in local agencies, those agencies need to communicate the actions they are taking to let the public know what they are doing. Local radio, newspapers, leaflets and newsletters all provide opportunities to send out the message that antisocial behaviour will not be tolerated, and let the public know the part they can play. For example, publicity of ASBO proceedings is often an integral part of local agencies' efforts to tackle antisocial behaviour for two reasons: first, to help the community and the victims of antisocial behaviour know that something positive has been done to stop the abuse; and, secondly, to publicise the prohibitions so that the community can help enforce the order. Such publicity is not intended to punish or shame the individual, but to show that the law is being enforced.
	I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool has advocated the use of publicity when ASBOs are granted, and I am aware that the issue of publicity has been a concern in Hartlepool. However, I have been informed that the local agencies are now taking a collective decision as to whether publicity is appropriate when they attend the consultation meeting before an application for an ASBO is made. It is to be hoped that such collective decision making will improve the process. I agree with my hon. Friend that people need to see that the law is being enforced—a plea that is often made in my constituency. Sometimes people say that even when the law is enforced by the police and local authorities they do not know about it, so publicity for the consequences of poor behaviour can be an important confidence-building measure. I know that my hon. Friend is particularly keen on such measures.
	More widely, a range of existing Home Office developments can be brought to bear in helping practitioners to tackle antisocial behaviour. The House will be interested to learn that a national survey of crime and disorder partnerships showed that between October 2003 and September 2005 we issued 13,000 acceptable behaviour contracts; 500 crack house closure orders; more than 1,500 housing injunctions; more than 1,700 parenting orders and contracts; and more than 800 dispersal orders. Figures from the police show that since 2004 more than 200,000 penalty notices for disorder have been issued. I want those powers to continue to be used widely and wisely across the country.
	There are record levels of police officers to tackle antisocial behaviour. Nationally, there were 141,270 police officers on 30 September 2005—an increase of more than 1,100 since September 2004, and 14,112 more than in March 1997. Cleveland had 1,640 police officers on 30 September 2005, which is an increase of 181, or 12 per cent., since March 1997. We are committed to increasing the number of police community support officers to 24,000 by March 2008. As my hon. Friend mentioned, there were 86 PCSOs in Hartlepool on 30 September 2005, and we expect the number to increase. PCSOs are already being used in Hartlepool and they will be the eyes and ears on the street. They have been one of the best reforms the Government have introduced and I am pleased that they are working with police officers on the streets of Hartlepool to try to tackle antisocial behaviour.
	My hon. Friend also mentioned that although there were problems with a small minority of people in some parts of his constituency, the good news is that total recorded crime fell by 21 per cent. in Hartlepool and by 8 per cent. in the Cleveland police force area as a whole between 2003-04 and 2004-05. Criminal damage fell by 9 per cent. in the Hartlepool area in the same period.
	It is worth keeping in mind that criminal damage and vandalism include incidents such as graffiti and broken windows, which blight local communities. I know that my hon. Friend is keen to see that all aspects of antisocial behaviour are tackled, including broken windows and vandalised telephone boxes and bus shelters. It is particularly important that we tackle the vandalism associated with street furniture.
	We are running a yearlong "tackling vandalism" programme with ENCAMS, which runs the "Keep Britain Tidy" campaign. Hartlepool crime and disorder reduction partnership is one of 84 CDRPs involved in the programme. Those partnerships will be developing and implementing an action plan to drive up performance and improve the delivery of initiatives to tackle criminal damage and vandalism.
	We have also worked in Hartlepool and other areas to tackle alcoholrelated violence. Indeed, in Hartlepool there have been a number of test-purchase operations to tackle under-age drinking; we shall release the results in the near future.
	My hon. Friend raised another major point about communities being able to call for action and the presence of community justice centres. I remind him that the Police and Justice Bill, currently progressing through Parliament, contains a measure called the community call for action. It will give those local communities who feel that there is a need for more action to tackle problems in their area a trigger by which they can demand that. That is a particularly important reform, because it empowers local communities to try to influence those who take decisions.
	My hon. Friend mentioned the community justice centre in north Liverpool. We are keen to repeat the success of that centre in other areas of England and Wales as soon as possible, building on the lessons that we have learned about it. The results of the evaluation of the north Liverpool project and the Salford community justice initiative, which is running now, will be reported in January 2007, which will give us an opportunity to consider how to move forward.
	As my hon. Friend also knows, we have tried to support families through Sure Start and many other projects. He mentioned the Dundee project and the possibility of something similar in Hartlepool. We are committed to rolling out 50 family intervention projects across the country; we have heard what my hon. Friend said and will keep his comments in mind when we consider their location.
	I have tried to limit my remarks to Hartlepool and the surrounding area, but the Government have taken a range of other initiatives nationally to do with respect as well as neighbourhood policing, which my hon. Friend is keen to encourage in his area. Indeed, the basic command unit to which he referred was one of the pilots for that and I know the keen interest that he has taken in it. We have tried to learn from that example and from my hon. Friend's interest as we roll out the policing programme for the rest of the country. Obviously, neighbourhood policing is a major means by which we intend to deliver our programme in terms of tackling antisocial behaviour, as is working with local councils, crime and disorder reduction partnerships, and so on.
	Antisocial behaviour blights far too many of our communities. It is probably the issue on which MPs get more correspondence and more individuals coming to see them than any other. That is why my hon. Friend has secured this important debate. His debate refers to Hartlepool, but I think that all Members would agree that his comments could be applied to many of our constituencies.
	But the debate has also shown that where people stand together, where people act with the local council, the local police and voluntary organisations, and where people use the powers that are available to them, given by this Government on a range of issues, we can make a difference. There is no need for any street in this country not to be reclaimed by its community. We can do that by working together. We can do that by using the laws that are available to us and we can do that by having hope and optimism for the future. I congratulate my hon. Friend again on the debate that he has initiated and my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington, East on his comments. I would say to everyone: stand together, because by doing that we can make a difference.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Six o'clock.